DOCSLIB.ORG

Reviving the Superorganism

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Reviving the Superorganism J. theor. Biol. (1989) 136, 337-356 Reviving the Superorganism DAVID SLOAN WILSON AND ELLIOTr SOBER Department of Biological Sciences, State University of New York, Binghamton, New York 13901, U.S.A. and Department of Philosophy, 5185 Helen C. White Hall, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin 53706, U.S.A. (Received 25 July 1988, and accepted in revised form 18 October 1988) Individuals become functionally organized to survive and reproduce in their environ- ments by the process of natural selection. The question of whether larger units such as groups and communities can possess similar properties of functional organization, and therefore be regarded as "'superorganisms", has a long history in biological thought. Modern evolutionary biology has rejected the concept of superorganisms, explaining virtually all adaptations at the individual or gene level. We criticize the modern literature on three counts. First, individual selection in its strong form is founded on a logical contradiction, in which genes-in-individuals are treated differently than individuals-in-groups or species-in-communities. Imposing con- sistency clea~rly shows that groups and communities can be organisms in the same sense that individuals are. Furthermore, superorganisms are more than just a theoreti- cal possibility and actually exist in nature. Second, the view that genes are the "ultimate" unit of selection is irrelevant to the question of functional organization. Third, modern evolutionary biology includes numerous conceptual frameworks for analyzing evolution in structured populations. These frameworks should be regarded as different ways of analyzing a common process which, to be correct, must converge on the same conclusions. Unfortunately, evolutionists frequently regard them as competing theories that invoke different mechanisms, such that if one is "right" the others must be "wrong". The problem of multiple frameworks is aggravated by the fact that major terms, such as "'units of selection", are defined differently within each framework, yet many evolutionists who use one framework to argue against another assume shared meanings. We suggest that focusing on the concept of organism will help dispell this fog of semantic confusion, allowing all frameworks to converge on the same conclusions regarding units of functional organization. Introduction The idea that single-species groups, multi-species communities, and human societies can possess the properties of single organisms is a frequently recurring theme in human thought. Within biology, social insect colonies have been regarded in this fashion for centuries. More recently, Clements (1916) compared the succession of plant species that culminates in a forest, to the growth and development of a single organism. Odum (1969) compared ecosystem processes such as nutrient cycling to the physiological processes of individuals. Wynne-Edwards (1962, 1986) proposes that populations evolve to avoid extinction, just as individuals evolve to avoid their own deaths. Margulis (1970, 1981) proposes that eucaryotic cells are in fact tightly integrated communities of bacteria. Lovelock (1979) even portrays the entire earth as a kind of organism that regulates its atmosphere to be conductive for life. 337 0022-5193/89/030337 + 21 $03.00/0 O 1989 Academic Press Limited 338 D.S. WILSON AND E. SOBER These theories have a certain magnetic appeal, as their sheer number and popular- ity among lay-people attests. Nevertheless, the superorganism concept has not fared well within evolutionary biology, which is the one discipline best qualified to judge it. Many evolutionists subscribe to a concept known as individual selection, which holds that groups, communities and human societies are only collections of organ- isms without themselves having the properties of organisms. Individual selectionists not only regard the existence of superorganisms as a dead issue, but they also regard its death as one of their greatest achievements (Williams, 1966; Ghiselin, 1974; Dawkins 1976, 1982; Maynard Smith, 1987a, b). The demise of the superorganism is perhaps best illustrated by the following quotes from modern social insect biologists. "Despite the logical force of arguments against group (or colony) selection, and the invention of tidy explanations for collaboration in individual terms, the supraorganism (colony-level selection) still haunts evolutionary discussions of insect sociality." (West- Eberhard, 1978, p. 12) "I know of no observation on honeybee biology which unequivocally demonstrates the action of colony-level selection working at the expense of individual interests." (Seeley, 1985, p. 7) Thus, according to these authors, even something as organism-like as a bee colony must be understood in individualistic terms. It is true that many superorganism theories are best regarded as poetic metaphors in scientific guise. To regard the earth's atmosphere as a fragile goddess that needs protection is far more compelling than to regard it as a complex system of gases that needs management. Unfortunately, the metaphor creates an illusion of func- tional organization where none exists, and presents a misleading image of nature as inherently benign and cooperative. The superorganism concept fails as a grandiose theory of nature, and its death in this form is indeed a triumph of modern evolution- ary biology. Against this background, reviving the superorganism concept might seem like bringing back Dr Frankenstein's well-intentioned monster. Nevertheless, at least five compelling reasons exist for constructing a clearly formulated scientific theory of superorganisms. (i) Individual selection in its strong form is founded on a logical contradiction. Imposing consistency clearly shows that collections of individuals can become functionally organized by natural selection, in exactly the same way that individuals themselves become functionally organized. (ii) Conditions for the evolution of superorganisms are not overly restrictive. Superorganisms are more than just a theoretical possibility; they actually exist in nature. (iii) The theory predicts that only some groups and communities qualify as superorganisms. Others are mere collections of individuals or complex mixtures of adaptation at more than one level. Thus, a legitimate theory of superorganisms is not grandiose, and can avoid the excesses of the past. (iv) The strong form of individual selection itself is a metaphor that creates a misleading picture of nature as inherently exploitative and competitive. The notion REVIVING THE SUPERORGANISM 339 that all evolved adaptations are brands of self-interest must be substantially modified if individuals sometimes function as "alleles" in group and community "organisms". A legitimate theory of superorganisms might therefore help correct certain excesses of the present. (v) Major terms surrounding this subject, such as "individual selection", "group selection", etc. have acquired multiple and conflicting meanings. Several conceptual frameworks exist that masquerade as competing theories, but which actually are alternative ways of analyzing a common process of evolution in structured popula- tions. To be correct, each framework must therefore reach the same conclusion about units of functional organization. This convergence can be facilitated by focusing on the concept of organism within each framework. Semantics The term "individual" and "organism" have a variety of meanings in evolutionary biology, and before proceeding it is important to clarify our own usage. Hull (1980) defines individuals as "spatio-temporally localized entities that have reasonably sharp beginnings and endings in time". Notice that this definition make~ no reference to functional organization; an atom, a gene, a single creature (such as an insect) and an entire species all are examples of individuals. By contrast, an organism can be defined as "a form of life composed of mutually dependent parts that maintain various vital processes" (Random House dictionary, unabridged edition). Thus, the hallmark of an organism is functional organization. An atom is not an organism, genes (and the organs they code for) are only parts of an organism, and species are frequently only collections of organisms. Because single creatures are, in most respects, both individuals and organisms, biologists informally use the two words interchangeably. The term ~'individual selection", for example, refers to single creatures, and not to the idea encompassed by Hull's broader definition. We will abide by the colloquial synonymy and refer to single creatures as both individuals and organisms. When more formal definitions are required, we will be careful to identify them as such. We define a superorganism as a collection of single creatures that together possess the functional organization implicit in the formal definition of organism. Just as genes and organs do not qualify as organisms, the single creatures that make up a superorganism also may not qualify as organisms in the formal sense of the word. We will continue to refer to them as individual organisms, however, to conform to colloquial usage. Individuals as Organisms, and the Concept of Heritability Individuals acquire the exquisite functional organization that justifies their status as organisms by the process of natural selection. As Darwin realized, natural selection requires heritable variation. Individuals must differ in their properties, and those differences also must exist to some degree in their offspring. If so, then
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Sensory and Cognitive Adaptations to Social Living in Insect Societies Tom Wenseleersa,1 and Jelle S
    COMMENTARY COMMENTARY Sensory and cognitive adaptations to social living in insect societies Tom Wenseleersa,1 and Jelle S. van Zwedena A key question in evolutionary biology is to explain the solitarily or form small annual colonies, depending upon causes and consequences of the so-called “major their environment (9). And one species, Lasioglossum transitions in evolution,” which resulted in the pro- marginatum, is even known to form large perennial euso- gressive evolution of cells, organisms, and animal so- cial colonies of over 400 workers (9). By comparing data cieties (1–3). Several studies, for example, have now from over 30 Halictine bees with contrasting levels of aimed to determine which suite of adaptive changes sociality, Wittwer et al. (7) now show that, as expected, occurred following the evolution of sociality in insects social sweat bee species invest more in sensorial machin- (4). In this context, a long-standing hypothesis is that ery linked to chemical communication, as measured by the evolution of the spectacular sociality seen in in- the density of their antennal sensillae, compared with sects, such as ants, bees, or wasps, should have gone species that secondarily reverted back to a solitary life- hand in hand with the evolution of more complex style. In fact, the same pattern even held for the socially chemical communication systems, to allow them to polymorphic species L. albipes if different populations coordinate their complex social behavior (5). Indeed, with contrasting levels of sociality were compared (Fig. whereas solitary insects are known to use pheromone 1, Inset). This finding suggests that the increased reliance signals mainly in the context of mate attraction and on chemical communication that comes with a social species-recognition, social insects use chemical sig- lifestyle indeed selects for fast, matching adaptations in nals in a wide variety of contexts: to communicate their sensory systems.
    [Show full text]
  • Following the Trail of Ants: an Examination of the Work of E.O
    Sacred Heart University DigitalCommons@SHU Writing Across the Curriculum Writing Across the Curriculum (WAC) 2012 Following The rT ail Of Ants: An Examination Of The orW k Of E.O. Wilson Samantha Kee Sacred Heart University Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.sacredheart.edu/wac_prize Part of the Biodiversity Commons, Ecology and Evolutionary Biology Commons, Entomology Commons, Other Genetics and Genomics Commons, Philosophy of Science Commons, Religion Commons, and the Theory, Knowledge and Science Commons Recommended Citation Kee, Samantha, "Following The rT ail Of Ants: An Examination Of The orkW Of E.O. Wilson" (2012). Writing Across the Curriculum. 2. http://digitalcommons.sacredheart.edu/wac_prize/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Writing Across the Curriculum (WAC) at DigitalCommons@SHU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Writing Across the Curriculum by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@SHU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Samantha Kee RS 299-Writing With Public Purpose Dr. Brian Stiltner March 2, 2012 Following the trail of ants An examination of the work of E.O. Wilson Edward Osborne Wilson was a born naturalist, in every sense of the word. As a child growing up in Alabama, he collected and studied species of snakes, flies, and the insect that became the basis of his life’s work, ants. He made a goal to record every species of ant that could be found in Alabama—a childhood project that would eventually lead to his first scientific publication. By age 13, Wilson discovered a red, non-native ant in a local town in Alabama, and by the time he entered the University of Alabama, the fire ant had become a significant threat to the state’s agriculture.
    [Show full text]
  • Insect Societies As Divided Organisms: the Complexities of Purpose and Cross-Purpose
    Insect societies as divided organisms: The complexities of purpose and cross-purpose Joan E. Strassmann* and David C. Queller Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Rice University, Houston, TX 77005 Individual organisms are complex in a special way. The organiza- explained aspects of biology that were nonadaptive conse- tion and function of their parts seem directed toward a purpose: quences of history, from vestigial organs and other homologies the survival and reproduction of that individual. Groups of organ- to biogeographical patterns. Our understanding that organisms isms are different. They may also be complex, but that is usually are a mix of historical constraint and adaptation by natural because their parts, the individual organisms, are working at selection has led to many successful predictions about the natural cross-purposes. The most obvious exception to this rule is the social world, whereas Paley’s theory stands mute about the details. In insects. Here, the individuals cooperate in complex ways toward other words, Darwin’s theory is much richer than a simple the common goal of the success of the colony, even if it means that explanation for design; it makes many further extensions and most of them do not reproduce. Kin selection theory explains how predictions. Some of these extensions and predictions were not this can evolve. Nonreproductive individuals help in the reproduc- fully appreciated in Darwin’s time. The last several decades have tion of their kin, who share and transmit their genes. Such help is seen increased attention to a further important question about most favored when individuals can give more to their kin than they the apparent design of organisms.
    [Show full text]
  • Comparative Methods Offer Powerful Insights Into Social Evolution in Bees Sarah Kocher, Robert Paxton
    Comparative methods offer powerful insights into social evolution in bees Sarah Kocher, Robert Paxton To cite this version: Sarah Kocher, Robert Paxton. Comparative methods offer powerful insights into social evolution in bees. Apidologie, Springer Verlag, 2014, 45 (3), pp.289-305. 10.1007/s13592-014-0268-3. hal- 01234748 HAL Id: hal-01234748 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01234748 Submitted on 27 Nov 2015 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Apidologie (2014) 45:289–305 Review article * INRA, DIB and Springer-Verlag France, 2014 DOI: 10.1007/s13592-014-0268-3 Comparative methods offer powerful insights into social evolution in bees 1 2 Sarah D. KOCHER , Robert J. PAXTON 1Department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology, Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA 2Institute for Biology, Martin-Luther-University Halle-Wittenberg, Halle, Germany Received 9 September 2013 – Revised 8 December 2013 – Accepted 2 January 2014 Abstract – Bees are excellent models for studying the evolution of sociality. While most species are solitary, many form social groups. The most complex form of social behavior, eusociality, has arisen independently four times within the bees.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction:Thinking Through Sociality
    Thinking through Sociality THINKING THROUGH SOCIALITY An Anthropological Interrogation of Key Concepts Edited by _ Vered Amit Published in 2015 by Berghahn Books www.berghahnbooks.com © 2015 Vered Amit All rights reserved. Except for the quotation of short passages for the purposes of criticism and review, no part of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system now known or to be invented, without written permission of the publisher. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Amit, Vered, 1955- Thinking through sociality : an anthropological interrogation of key concepts / edited by Vered Amit. pages cm Includes bibliographical references. ISBN 978-1-78238-585-1 (hardback) -- ISBN 978-1-78238-586-8 (ebook) 1. Ethnology. 2. Social interaction. 3. Anthropology. I. Title. GN325.A44 2015 302--dc23 2014033522 British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library ISBN 978-1-78238-585-1 (hardback) ISBN 978-1-78238-586-8 (ebook) Contents Acknowledgements vi _ Introduction Thinking through Sociality: The Importance of 1 Mid-level Concepts Vered Amit with Sally Anderson, Virginia Caputo, John Postill, Deborah Reed-Danahay and Gabriela Vargas-Cetina 1 Disjuncture: The Creativity of, and Breaks in, Everyday 21 Associations and Routines Vered Amit 2 Fields: Dynamic Configurations of Practices, Games and 47 Socialities John Postill 3 Social Space: Distance, Proximity
    [Show full text]
  • Evolution of Cooperation Cooperation Vs
    Cooperation Main points for today Cooperation • Sociality, cooperation, mutualism, altruism - definitions • Kin selection – Hamilton’s rule, how to calculate r Why is it surprising and • Group selection – the price equation, green beards, and assortment how does it evolve • Classic examples – alarm calls, helpers at the nest, social insects, predator inspection, food sharing Definitions ‘Social behavior’ is NOT cooperative behavior Cooperation: Displaying a behavior that benefits another Group living vs. cooperation individual. (If both benefit that's mutualism.) Sociality-no- Altruism: cooperation Displaying a behavior that benefits another and individual at a cost to oneself. cooperation- Sociality/social behavior: no-sociality Living in a group/behavior in interactions with conspecifics I define ‘sociality’ as living with other individuals of the same species at least semi-permanently. Why individuals do not sacrifice themselves The evolutionary mystery for the good of the group How can altruism evolve? • If the recipient of the cooperative/altruistic act benefits, it is going to leave more offspring . • The actor however is not going to leave more offspring, or even fewer offspring – fewer altruists in the next generation . If such behavior is heritable, and it goes on over many generations, it will ultimately die out. 1 The evolutionary mystery Evolution of altruism Altruism: 5 possible Group selection explanations The Price equation : shows how variance partitioned among individuals and groups leads to selection • Group selection
    [Show full text]
  • Sharing of Science Is Most Likely Among Male Scientists Jorg J
    www.nature.com/scientificreports OPEN Sharing of science is most likely among male scientists Jorg J. M. Massen1, Lisa Bauer1, Benjamin Spurny1, Thomas Bugnyar1 & Mariska E. Kret2,3 Humans are considered to be highly prosocial, especially in comparison to other species. However, Received: 28 April 2017 most tests of prosociality are conducted in highly artifcial settings among anonymous participants. To Accepted: 25 September 2017 gain a better understanding of how human hyper-cooperation may have evolved, we tested humans’ Published: xx xx xxxx willingness to share in one of the most competitive felds of our current society: academia. Researchers were generally prosocial with 80% sharing a PDF of one of their latest papers, and almost 60% willing to send us their data. Intriguingly, prosociality was most prominent from male to male, and less likely among all other sex-combinations. This pattern suggests the presence of male-exclusive networks in science, and may be based on an evolutionary history promoting strong male bonds. Prosociality has been proposed as a hallmark of humanity1, and studies on prosociality in our closest living relatives have long corroborated the idea that such behavior is uniquely human (e.g.2,3 but see4). A major draw- back is that experimental methods for studying prosociality difer dramatically, particularly between human and non-human studies, and that many experiments lack ecological relevance5. For example, in humans most of these tests are computerized cooperation tasks or public goods games performed in peer groups of college students who anonymously make decisions about an interaction partner they do not know and will never need to interact with in the future.
    [Show full text]
  • Bringing in Darwin Bradley A. Thayer
    Bringing in Darwin Bradley A. Thayer Evolutionary Theory, Realism, and International Politics Efforts to develop a foundation for scientiªc knowledge that would unite the natural and social sci- ences date to the classical Greeks. Given recent advances in genetics and evolu- tionary theory, this goal may be closer than ever.1 The human genome project has generated much media attention as scientists reveal genetic causes of dis- eases and some aspects of human behavior. And although advances in evolu- tionary theory may have received less attention, they are no less signiªcant. Edward O. Wilson, Roger Masters, and Albert Somit, among others, have led the way in using evolutionary theory and social science to produce a synthesis for understanding human behavior and social phenomena.2 This synthesis posits that human behavior is simultaneously and inextricably a result of evo- lutionary and environmental causes. The social sciences, including the study of international politics, may build upon this scholarship.3 In this article I argue that evolutionary theory can improve the realist theory of international politics. Traditional realist arguments rest principally on one of two discrete ultimate causes, or intellectual foundations. The ªrst is Reinhold Niebuhr’s argument that humans are evil. The second is grounded in the work Bradley A. Thayer is an Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of Minnesota—Duluth. I am grateful to Mlada Bukovansky, Stephen Chilton, Christopher Layne, Michael Mastanduno, Roger Masters, Paul Sharp, Alexander Wendt, Mike Winnerstig, and Howard Wriggins for their helpful comments. I thank Nathaniel Fick, David Hawkins, Jeremy Joseph, Christopher Kwak, Craig Nerenberg, and Jordana Phillips for their able research assistance.
    [Show full text]
  • Warfare in an Evolutionary Perspective
    Received: 26 November 2018 Revised: 7 May 2019 Accepted: 18 September 2019 DOI: 10.1002/evan.21806 REVIEW ARTICLE Warfare in an evolutionary perspective Bonaventura Majolo School of Psychology, University of Lincoln, Sarah Swift Building, Lincoln, UK Abstract The importance of warfare for human evolution is hotly debated in anthropology. Correspondence Bonaventura Majolo, School of Psychology, Some authors hypothesize that warfare emerged at least 200,000–100,000 years BP, University of Lincoln, Sarah Swift Building, was frequent, and significantly shaped human social evolution. Other authors claim Brayford Wharf East, Lincoln LN5 7AT, UK. Email: [email protected] that warfare is a recent phenomenon, linked to the emergence of agriculture, and mostly explained by cultural rather than evolutionary forces. Here I highlight and crit- ically evaluate six controversial points on the evolutionary bases of warfare. I argue that cultural and evolutionary explanations on the emergence of warfare are not alternative but analyze biological diversity at two distinct levels. An evolved propen- sity to act aggressively toward outgroup individuals may emerge irrespective of whether warfare appeared early/late during human evolution. Finally, I argue that lethal violence and aggression toward outgroup individuals are two linked but distinct phenomena, and that war and peace are complementary and should not always be treated as two mutually exclusive behavioral responses. KEYWORDS aggression, competition, conflict, cooperation, peace, social evolution, violence, war 1 | INTRODUCTION and others on the importance of organized/cooperative actions among members of one social group against members of the opposing The question of whether humans are innately peaceful or aggressive group.5 Clearly, how we define warfare affects how deep we can go has fascinated scientists and philosophers for centuries.1,2 Wars, eth- back in time in human evolution to investigate its emergence and evo- nic or religious contests, and intra-group or intra-family violence are lutionary bases.
    [Show full text]
  • DANIEL DENNETT and the SCIENCE of RELIGION Richard F
    DANIEL DENNETT AND THE SCIENCE OF RELIGION Richard F. Green Department of Mathematics and Statistics University of Minnesota-Duluth Duluth, MN 55812 ABSTRACT Daniel Dennett (2006) recently published a book, “Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon,” which advocates the scientific study of religion. Dennett is a philosopher with wide-ranging interests including evolution and cognitive psychology. This talk is basically a review of Dennett’s religion book, but it will include comments about other work about religion, some mentioned by Dennett and some not. I will begin by describing my personal interest in religion and philosophy, including some recent reading. Then I will comment about the study of religion, including the scientific study of religion. Then I will describe some of Dennett’s ideas about religion. I will conclude by trying outlining the ideas that should be considered in order to understand religion. This talk is mostly about ideas, particularly religious beliefs, but not so much churches, creeds or religious practices. These other aspects of religion are important, and are the subject of study by a number of disciplines. I will mention some of the ways that people have studied religion, mainly to provide context for the particular ideas that I want to emphasize. I share Dennett’s reticence about defining religion. I will offer several definitions of religion, but religion is probably better defined by example than by attempting to specify its essence. A particular example of a religion is Christianity, even more particularly, Roman Catholicism. MOTIVATION My interest in philosophy and religion I. Beginnings I read a few books about religion and philosophy when I was in high school and imagined that college would be full of people arguing about religion and philosophy.
    [Show full text]
  • Edward Westermarck: He Proposed a Link Between Two Micro- Behaviours, Between Aversion (Or Approval) and the "Moral Emotions"
    Huntan Ethology Bulletin http://evolution.anthro.univie.ac.atlishe.html VOLUME 15, ISSUE 2 ISSN 0739-2036 JUNE 2000 © 1999 The International Society for Human Ethology the Max-Planck-Society at Andechs, Germany and the Ludwig Boltzmann Institute for Urban Ethology in Vienna. From 1951 to 1970 he was a research associate of Konrad Lorenz. From 1970 to 1996 he was Head of the Research Group for Human Ethology in the Max Planck Society. An important aspect of his research has been the long-term study and filming of the social ecology of several different cultures including the San, Himba, Yanomami, Eipo, and Trobriand Islanders. This work over a span of more than a quarter century has provided a legacy of about 275 kIn of 16mm film from which over 200 documentary films have been published by the Encylopedia cinematographica in Gottingen. Among his many publications are: Ethology, The Biology of Behaviour (1970, 1975), Love and Hate (1970, 1996), The !Ko Bushman Society (1972), The Biology of Peace and War (1979), Human Ethology (1989), and Indoctrinability, Ideology, and Warfare (1998) co:edited with Frank Salter. The following interview took place over several Everything Goes, days in mid February, 2000 in Andechs, just after Professor Eibl-Eibesfeldt and his wife, Lorle, But Not Everything Works celebrated their 50th wedding anniversary. HEB: Ernst Mayr has commented that the major contribution of the leaders of biological thought has been the development and refinement of concepts and occasionally the elimination of Interview of erroneous ones. Evolutionary biology owes a remarkably large portion of its concepts to Charles Irenaus Eibl-Eibesfeldt Darwin, and ethology to Konrad Lorenz.
    [Show full text]
  • An Introduction to Sociobiology: Inclusive Fitness and the Core Genome Herbert Gintis
    An Introduction to Sociobiology: Inclusive Fitness and the Core Genome Herbert Gintis June 29, 2013 The besetting danger is ...mistaking part of the truth for the whole...in every one of the leading controversies...both sides were in the right in what they affirmed, though wrong in what they denied John Stuart Mill, On Coleridge, 1867 A Mendelian populationhas a common gene pool, whichis itscollective or corporate genotype. Theodosius Dobzhansky, Cold Springs Harbor Symposium, 1953. The interaction between regulator and structural genes... [reinforces] the concept that the genotype of the individual is a whole. Ernst Mayr, Populations, Species and Evolution, 1970 Abstract This paper develops inclusive fitness theory with the aim of clarifying its appropriate place in sociobiological theory and specifying the associated principles that render it powerful. The paper introduces one new concept, that of the core genome. Treating the core genome as a unit of selection solves problems concerning levels of selection in evolution. 1 Summary Sociobiology is the study of biological interaction, both intragenomic, among loci in the genome, and intergenomic, among individuals in a reproductive popula- tion (Gardner et al. 2007). William Hamilton (1964) extended the theory of gene frequencies developed in the first half of the Twentieth century (Crow and I would like to thank Samuel Bowles, Eric Charnov, Steven Frank, Michael Ghiselin, Peter Godfrey-Smith, David Haig, David Queller, Laurent Lehmann, Samir Okasha, Peter Richerson, Joan Roughgarden, Elliot Sober, David Van Dyken, Mattijs van Veelen and Edward O. Wilson for advice in preparing this paper. 1 Kimura 1970, B¨urger 2000, Provine 2001) to deal with such behavior.
    [Show full text]